The criminal special leave petition filed by Paramvir Singh Saini brought attention to
allegations of police torture during his arrest and detention in Punjab. Seeking to address the
broader issue of custodial violence and protect the rights of the accused, the petitioner
advocated for mandatory CCTV camera installations in all police stations and investigative
agencies. Responding to the gravity of the situation, the Supreme Court took proactive steps,
instructing states and union territories to furnish detailed reports on the status of CCTV
camera installations in their respective police stations and agencies. Upon reviewing the
submitted reports, the Court expressed dissatisfaction, noting that many were incomplete or
unsatisfactory. It also underscored the failure of several states and UTs to establish the
Central Oversight Body (COB) as previously mandated in the Shafhi Mohammad v. State of
Himachal Pradesh 1 case.
Considering these findings, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive directives aimed at
ensuring the effective installation, maintenance, and monitoring of CCTV cameras in all
police stations and agencies. Additionally, the Court emphasized the establishment of
oversight bodies at both the state and district levels. Acknowledging the significance of
audio-video recording under Section 161(3) of the CrPC 2 , the Court reiterated the importance
of preserving CCTV footage for a reasonable duration. To facilitate the implementation of
these directives, the Court appointed Siddhartha Dave as the amicus curiae, demonstrating its
commitment to addressing the serious concerns raised by the petitioner and establishing
measures to prevent custodial violence.
ISSUES
I. How much progress has been made in installing CCTV cameras at police stations?
II. What is the current composition of the Central Oversight Body (COB)?
III. Is the state following the provision outlined in Section 161(3) of the CrPC?
CONTENTIONS
1 Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 5 SCC 311.
2 Section 161 (3) of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
In the legal case involving Paramvir Singh Saini and Baljit Singh, the Supreme Court of India
took a noteworthy stand to protect the rights of accused individuals and those awaiting trial.
They made it a requirement for police stations and investigative agencies to install CCTV
cameras, ensuring transparency and accountability in the criminal justice system.
Paramvir Singh Saini, the petitioner, had requested the audio-visual recording of his
statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This request was
contested by Baljit Singh, the Station House Officer, who argued that there was no provision
for such recording under Section 161 of the CrPC. The petitioner cited previous Supreme
Court decisions that had directed the installation of CCTV cameras and videography during
crime scene investigations to prevent mistreatment and protect human rights. However, the
respondent argued that these directives were merely suggestions and depended on the
availability of funds and infrastructure.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory installation of CCTV cameras,
highlighting the importance of ensuring the credibility of accused statements and preventing
human rights violations through surveillance technology. As part of its directives, the court-
mandated the creation of oversight bodies at both state and district levels. These bodies
would be responsible for monitoring CCTV footage and issuing guidelines for the effective
use of videography in the criminal justice system. This landmark decision represents a
significant step toward protecting the rights of the accused and fostering accountability in law
enforcement practices.
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations
and investigative agencies is a requirement rather than a matter of choice, ensuring
transparency and accountability in law enforcement. This instruction seeks to protect the
accused parties’ credibility in their statements and—above all—to serve as a warning to
investigating authorities about possible abuses of human rights.
In furtherance of this commitment to oversight and accountability, the Supreme Court has
mandated the establishment of oversight bodies at both state and district levels. These bodies
are entrusted with the critical task of monitoring the CCTV footage regularly and producing
periodic reports outlining their observations. This step is deemed mandatory, reinforcing the
court’s dedication to creating a robust system that ensures adherence to established
procedures and safeguards against any lapses or misconduct. The Central Oversight Body,
established by the Ministry of Home Affairs, plays a pivotal role in the effective
implementation of videography in the criminal justice system. It is tasked with issuing
appropriate instructions and guidelines, ensuring uniformity and consistency in the use of this
technology across different jurisdictions. The court’s emphasis on the mandatory nature of
these measures reflects a proactive approach to addressing potential issues and upholding the
principles of justice, accountability, and human rights within the criminal justice system. 3
DEFECTS OF THE LAW
Before the Paramvir Singh Saini Versus Baljit Singh case, there were significant
shortcomings in the legal framework that allowed law enforcement agencies to potentially
infringe upon the rights of accused individuals and those awaiting trial. The law did not
compel the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations; it was considered an optional
measure according to the D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 4 judgment. This discretion
granted to the police made it challenging to monitor and prevent incidents of custodial
violence and torture. The incorporation of videography in the criminal justice system lacked
clear guidelines or standards. The absence of specific instructions from the Central Oversight
Body (COB), established by the Ministry of Home Affairs as per the Shafhi Mohammad v.
State of Himachal Pradesh 5 order, led to ambiguity and inconsistency in the application of
videography in crime scene investigations, interrogation of accused persons, and the
recording of statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Statements of accused individuals recorded under section 161 of the CrPC were not obligated
to be audio-visually recorded, according to the proviso to section 161(3) of the CrPC. This
loophole enabled the police to potentially coerce, or influence accused persons into making
false or self-incriminating statements, posing challenges in verifying the authenticity and
voluntariness of such statements.
The Supreme Court addressed and rectified these legal deficiencies in the Paramvir Singh
Saini Versus Baljit Singh case. The court mandated the mandatory installation of CCTV
3 Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2021) 1 SCC 184.
4 D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal & Others, (2015) 8 SCC 744.
5 Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 5 SCC 311.
cameras in police stations and other investigating agencies, providing appropriate directions
and guidelines for the consistent and regulated use of videography in the criminal justice
system. This landmark case aimed to remedy identified flaws and enhance accountability and
transparency within the legal framework. You can explore further details in one of the web
search results for a comprehensive case analysis.
INFERENCE
The Supreme Court made a significant decision about putting CCTV cameras in police
stations. They set up the Central Oversight Body (COB) to ensure the installation of these
cameras, aiming to better protect prisoners and strengthen the reliability of witness
statements. The Court directed all states and Union Territories to carefully check where and
how CCTV cameras were placed in their police stations.
However, the information provided by the states and Union Territories was not accurate or
detailed enough. Reports from 14 states lacked important information, like the total number
of cameras, how well they worked, if they could record, and where they were placed. In a
specific case involving Nabi Karim Police Station, the Court noticed the absence of an audio
recording system, pointing out weaknesses in the existing surveillance setup.
Stressing the crucial role of CCTV cameras in safeguarding prisoners and witnesses from
harm, the Supreme Court highlighted the need to strictly follow Section 161(3) of the Indian
Constitution for effective camera implementation. While acknowledging the hard work of
police officers in India, the Court expressed worry about the increasing incidents of custodial
deaths and brutality, emphasizing the urgency of taking strong measures to address this
concerning trend.
The use of CCTV technology in the criminal justice system is based on constitutional and
statutory provisions that aim to protect human rights, prevent custodial violence, and regulate
the use of videography. This perspective follows established legal principles and precedents
set by earlier cases, such as Shafhi Mohammad and D.K. Basu. The court’s legal framework
introduces new obligations and mechanisms, including the creation of oversight bodies at
both state and district levels and the establishment of the Central Oversight Body.
From a social point of view, the integration of CCTV in criminal justice serves the main goal
of holding police and investigative agencies accountable when accused of human rights
violations. This perspective aims to improve the credibility and reliability of statements made
by accused individuals. Moreover, it hopes to create awareness among police and
investigative officers about the importance of videography and the need to respect the rights
of the accused during legal proceedings.
However, from a practical point of view, the implementation of these legal and social
perspectives faces various challenges. These challenges include the lack of clarity and
uniformity in guidelines, the absence of mechanisms ensuring the preservation of CCTV
footage, the possibility of tampering, insufficient funding and resources, a lack of awareness
among law enforcement personnel, and resistance driven by the fear of losing power. These
practical difficulties show the complexity of translating legal and social ideals into effective,
on-the-ground practices within the criminal justice system. Addressing these challenges is
essential to ensuring the successful integration of CCTV technology and achieving the
intended legal and social objectives.
AKIL A
OP JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY